Do The Math: The Mueller Indictments Still Don’t Add Up to Collusion
[No matter how you do the math, The Mueller Indictments add up to Epic Fail. Nothing even close to Collusion has been proven. The Politicians, Government Bureaucrats and Downstream Media that were counting on a Hillary Win and then a Mueller Miracle, have sucked all of the O2 out of the room and what’s left of their careers. ~TLB]
By Aaron Maté
A year of investigations has led to several guilty pleas, but none of them go to the core of the special counsel’s mandate.
In just over one year, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia has generated five guilty pleas, 20 indictments, and more than 100 charges. None of these have anything to do with Mueller’s chief focus: the Russian government’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s suspected involvement. While it’s certainly possible that Mueller will make new indictments that go to the core of his case, what’s been revealed so far does not make a compelling brief for collusion.
The most high-level Trump campaign official to be indicted is Paul Manafort, as well as his former business partner and Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates. The charges, as a Virginia judge observed last month, “manifestly don’t have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion.” Instead, Manafort and Gates are accused of financial crimes beginning in 2008, when they worked as political operatives for a Russia-leaning party in Ukraine (and for which Manafort was previously investigated, but not indicted).
There is widespread supposition that Manafort’s dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion with Moscow. But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in Kiev. The opposite appears to be the case. The New York Times recounts that Manafort “pressed [then–Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych to sign an agreement with the European Union that would link the country closer to the West—and lobbied for the Americans to support Ukraine’s membership.” If that picture is accurate, then Manafort’s activities in Ukraine during the period for which he has been indicted were diametrically opposed to the Kremlin’s agenda.
Manafort’s employment of Konstantin Kilimnik, who was indicted last week on obstruction charges in Manafort’s case, is seen as another Kremlin link. Kilimnik studied as a linguist at a Soviet-era military school and went on to become Manafort’s translator and fixer in Ukraine. According to Mueller, Kilimnik has “ties to Russian intelligence” that were active during the 2016 campaign. The evidence to support that assertion is sealed. For his part, Kilimnik denies being a Russian agent. Ukrainian authorities investigated him in August 2016 but did not bring charges. According to The Atlantic, “insinuations” that Kilimnik worked for Russian intelligence then “were never backed by more than a smattering of circumstantial evidence.”
While Manafort’s alleged offenses (aside from the new obstruction charges) occurred well before the 2016 campaign, those of former national security adviser Michael Flynn came after. Flynn admitted to making “false statements and omissions” about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in December 2016. According to his charge sheet, Flynn falsely told agents that he did not request that Russia respond to new US sanctions “in a reciprocal manner” because the incoming Trump team “did not want Russia to escalate the situation.” Flynn also hid from FBI agents that, days before that call, he first asked Kislyak to veto a UN Security Council measure condemning Israeli settlement building, which the outgoing Obama administration had decided to let pass (Russia ultimately rebuffed Flynn and supported the measure).
The FBI was able to charge Flynn because it had concrete evidence that his statements to them were false: wiretaps of his conversations with Kislyak. But these calls offer nothing on collusion. As The Washington Post reported, FBI agents who “reviewed” the calls with Kislyak had “not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government.”
Like Flynn, George Papadopoulos has also pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI after the election. Although he is the lowest-level member of the Trump campaign to be charged, his case has emerged front and center. In the months since Papadopoulos’s October indictment, we have been told that the FBI launched an investigation, code named “ Crossfire Hurricane,” because of him. We also recently learned that the FBI enlisted an informant, Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper, to make contact with Papadopoulos and two other campaign officials, Carter Page and Sam Clovis, in a bid to pry loose information on potential campaign ties to Russia.
In charging Papadopoulos, Mueller’s team raised the prospect that Papadopoulos was told about stolen Democratic e-mails before the theft of DNC e-mails was publicly known. According to the Statement of Offense, Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud informed Papadopoulos that “the Russians” had obtained “thousands of emails” containing “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. The two spoke in April 2016, before the first DNC e-mails were released. Papadopoulos volunteered to agents his information on Mifsud’s offer; he pleaded guilty to misrepresenting the timing of when he spoke to Mifsud. All of this would be more explosive if, as the Mueller team suggested, Mifsud actually “had substantial connections to Russian government officials,” and recently “met with some of those officials in Moscow.”
And yet there were ample reasons to question whether Papadopoulos was a plausible conduit for Trump-Kremlin collusion. He was an unpaid volunteer known for embellishing credentials; who not only didn’t land a job in the Trump administration post-election but couldn’t even get his travel expenses reimbursed during the campaign.
It is also quite possible that Mifsud was referring to the 30,000 State Department e-mails deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private server, by that point a well-publicized controversy. Papadopoulos’s wife, Simona Mangiante, now says that Papadopoulos believes that to be the case. She also says that Papadopoulos has no knowledge of collusion and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI only because Mueller threatened to charge him for having been an unregistered foreign agent of Israel.
If Papadopoulos offers Mueller nothing on collusion, the other main staple of collusion allegations—the infamous June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower—is an unlikely alternative. The music publicist who set up the meeting, Rob Goldstone, e-mailed Donald Trump Jr. with an offer of “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia,”—not, it should be noted, stolen e-mails. But because Goldstone also wrote of “very high level and sensitive information,” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” his message has been quoted endlessly as Exhibit A for a Trump-Russia plot.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our main websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … TLB
Follow TLB on Twitter @thetlbproject
The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.
TLB has other above the fold articles, videos and stories available by clicking on “HOME” at the top of this post. Never miss a new post, sign up for E-Mail alerts at the bottom of the Home page and get a link dropped right to your in-box.
TheLibertyBeacon.com contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.